I am working on an essay on why or why not England should return the Koh-i-Noor diamond to India. My position is that it shouldn't because of the Treaty of Lahore. Does anyone have any good articles about the agreements of the Treaty of Lahore?
>>1120475
The ownership of some diamond is not one of India's biggest problems right now, overall the whole thing is just petty.
>>1120482
I need info about it because I'm doing an essay about it for my English class
>>1120496
Just say that.
>>1120475
The ultimate argument for this is that we should not start the habit of returning all that shit that was taken fuck knows how much time ago. Even if it's about petty crap like that stone it could soon lead to everyone wanting back everything from everyone.
If you don't want to generalise this issue and want to concentrate in this case only, then it's mostly a moral question. Yes, the Koh-i-Noor was surrendered to Britain in a signed treaty. But come on, the Brits won a war. In a foreign country they just made their own. It wasn't much of a two-sided agreement. So no, that treaty is not a very strong argument in this case.
>>1120475
That is a pretty shitty argument.
The question is, does it belong in UK? Just like the Elgin Marbles, the answer is honestly 'No'.
Also, if the stone was solely won in a treaty, then it could similarly be returned as an act of goodwill.
I predict the Stone returning to India sometime after the Queen dies, as an act of diplomatic friendship. UK is becoming quite dependent on India now, and falling behind as a global power.
I think it's common courtesy to return their property
The British had enough decency to give the Ashanti tribe their golden stool back
It's rightful Afghan property
>>1122511
So is your mum.
>>1122519
nice one x
